In Please Vote for Me, what should have been (from an American viewpoint) a friendly and innocent vote for class monitor, became a vicious week of name-calling, bribery, and emotional stress. In short, the Grade 3 Class 1 of Evergreen Promarh School, became representative of all the worst characteristics of democracy.

Fascinatingly, much of the bad behavior demonstrated throughout the film is instigated by the parents of the children. From writing speeches to preparing bribes to forcing the children to stay in the running, the parents of the 3 candidates were just as, if not more, important characters in the documentary than their children. This discrepancy can probably by explained in a couple of different ways. Similar to Iran, when investigating the much higher voter participation in elections that in the US, the effort into this third grade class monitor election, is due to the lack of any other elections in the country. To the Chinese parents, this election, then, counts as a chance, a hope, for some small control of the government institutions. Even though the third grade class monitor election is virtually nothing in the grand scheme of politics, it is symbolic of the hope for larger change and influence. In this way, the only chance to parents have to participate in an election is to do so through their kids. On the other hand, the actions of the parents are distinctly done to put their children in a better position- a purely selfish (but understandable) maneuver . As was mentioned in the film, being class monitor could be the first step to having a political career all the way up to President, like that of (then) current President Hu Jintao. Finally, the actions of the parents can be attributed to the parenting culture in China. Many of the parent-child interactions, such as threat of beatings or forcing extra work after bedtime, were very different from Western images of parenting styles.

Ultimately, however, it is critical to note that none of the participants in the documentary had any idea of what democracy was, and why it was important. If examined through a Toquevillian perspective, it is clear that although the institutional design (individual votes, peaceful transition of power, etc) of the system linked with our Western perception of democracy, the lack of the social culture  lacks causality of true democracy. This lack of a social culture is exhibited by the parents and adults and through them the students. In this way, although the class monitor election was presented as a new democratic opportunity, in fact, it was just a bad facimile of true democracy, and a way to appease the Chinese people of a need to participate and matter in politics.

In Harvey Mansfield’s introduction to The Prince, he writes “The essence of politics is that ‘you can get away with murder’: that no divine sanction, or degradation of soul, or twinge of conscience will come to punish you.” Such views are extremely apt to the 2007 documentary “Please Vote for Me”. In fact, Machiavelli would agree with Luo Lei’s coming to power–is Luo Lei a Machiavellian prince? Luo Lei’s successful election rests upon his (or more so, his parent’s) ability to understanding his opponents and the “political atmosphere” of the primary school. In the middle of the documentary, Cheng Cheng manages to swerve the voters’ opinions on his opponents (Xiaofei and Luo Lei), resulting in his being a frontrunner for the class monitor position.  When Luo Lei wants to quit, his parents suggest that he take the entire class on the monorail to “show off” and “improve [his] relationship with [his] classmates.” The classes trip to the monorail places Luo Lei in a popular standing, one above Cheng Cheng. Machiavelli would agree with this “virtuous” act. Machiavelli views the ordinary people as simple beings, individuals that will either like or dislike the Prince. Luo Lei manages to find himself in the good graces of his voters while simultaneously asserting his dominance as the son of the director of the police department. In bringing his classmates to the monorail, Luo Lei also diminishes Cheng Cheng’s criticisms of him. Through this small, seemingly innocent act, Luo Lei manages to gain popularity, assert dominance, and fight the threat of foreign power—all aspect Machiavelli would condone. To counter this act, Cheng Cheng and Xiaofei join forces to “expose” Luo Lei’s tyrannical acts. Does it work? Although Luo Lei seems to be a violent tyrants, he still manages to receive the most votes. As the teacher in the documentary says, “[the students] are the master of [their] own choice.” But, why did Luo Lei win after his opponents expose his amoral behavior? Something about Luo Lei’s leadership style was appealing enough for the students to vote for him as class monitor for the third year in a row. It would be hard to argue that voter-fraud occurred in this elementary school class. Luo Lei won because democracy took place. Luo Lei won the majority of the vote despite Cheng Cheng’s and Xiaofei’s attempts to poison the public against him. The majority of his classmates saw him as the best possible option. Did you?